Operation “Buy Hitchens A Drink!”

by Nathan Hamm on 7/13/2004 · 2 comments

I like Christopher Hitchens enough that I have set up an MSN alert to send me a text message every time he’s got something up at Slate. Over at Winds of Change, Joe has set up a collection drive to buy Hitch some of his favorite libation. It will be delivered to him with a note of appreciation from the bloggers and readers that have chipped in.

Go check it out, and while you’re at it, read Hitch’s latest: PLame’s Lame Game.


Subscribe to receive updates from Registan

This post was written by...

– author of 2991 posts on 17_PersonNotFound.

Nathan is the founder and Principal Analyst for Registan, which he launched in 2003. He was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Uzbekistan 2000-2001 and received his MA in Central Asian Studies from the University of Washington in 2007. Since 2007, he has worked full-time as an analyst, consulting with private and government clients on Central Asian affairs, specializing in how socio-cultural and political factors shape risks and opportunities and how organizations can adjust their strategic and operational plans to account for these variables. More information on Registan's services can be found here, and Nathan can be contacted via Twitter or email.

For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use

{ 2 comments }

Mark Hamm July 13, 2004 at 7:59 pm

So I read his Plame/Wilson article, his F9/11 and his Reagan is dumb article as well. I don’t see his wit or intelligence. I don’t see his conclusion that Novak was right to print the fact that Plame was CIA. Is he saying Novak/Cheney/Rove knew the Italian forgery was based on a true document? Why didn’t they tell us that then? I think a better conclusion is that the Bush administration took a chicken shit approach to fighting their own CIA. THe CIA may have it’s faults but he goes way overboard in his conclusion that they are the worst federal agency.

His TV appearance with Micheal Moore’s lawyer may have biased me to look at him more critically. SO I’ll be open to changing my conclusion.

Nathan July 13, 2004 at 9:00 pm

I don’t agree with him all the time, and on matters of arcane or mundane policy he’s not nearly as good. What he is good at, and what so many on the right like him for, is reminding the left that they once were the standard-bearers of freedom and liberal values. He’s one of the few on the left, especially the far left, that gives Bush the benefit of the doubt and recognizes that this administration does truly believe in the spread of liberal and democratic values. All this from a guy who doesn’t even like him.

As for the Plame article, you know good and well that facts don’t matter in the Iraq debate. Anything Bush could have done to make his case would have been used as further evidence of the lengths he would go to to lie. Look at the way the whole issue was handled before. It was all about “the 16 words.” Bush lied, people died.

Josh Marshall’s treatment now (by no means one outside of the Democratic mainstream)? The Senate committee didn’t do it’s job right (I guess it’d do it right if it said what he wanted… Kind of like the accusation that Bush wouldn’t accept intelligence unless it said what he wanted.). And, anyway, the big deal is that someone broke the law.

Yep, someone broke the law. Suddenly it looks like that knowledge was pretty relevant to the case and that Wilson did a hack job.

Sure, the story is complicated and it’s not going to all come out. It should be a lesson that Bush should never have made the case on intelligence and weapons (even if so many other security agencies agreed with us…).

Previous post:

Next post: